The green lines are recognized borders since most countries in the world recognize that as sovereign territory(for example all embassies including America's are in Tel Aviv). Countries don't recognize West Bank, Golan Heights as Israeli territory if they recognized as Israeli territory than countries would have recognized East Jerusalem(this is also the same argument you use against West Bank being part of Jordan since no one recognized that annexation when the world has done the same to East Jerusalem and Golan Height annexations) and Golan Height annexations.
xavierphoenix, et al, A lot of what you say here is true, but not maybe as applicable to the situation as you might think. (SOME THOUGHTS TO REMEMBER) The Green Line is an Armistice Line, and technically not a border. It was never intended to be a border. It is a ridiculous line. It was essential the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) in 1949, when the Armistice Agreements were made and accepted. But there was always suppose to be a more permanent arrangement by means of a Treaty between the waring parties (Israel 'vs' Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt). You will please take note, THAT there is no Armistice Agreement with any entity called Palestine. They were not a self-governing body able to make such an Agreement under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. While the Palestinians did contribute some irregular volunteer forces to the 1949 Armed Intervention by the Arab League [in contradiction to Articles 2(3) and 2(4) of the Charter]; these forces being the Holy War Army (Commanded by Hasan Salama, a former Arab-Palestinain Waffen SS Officer with a Special Commando Unit operating against the Allied Forces) and the Arab Liberation Army (Commanded by Fawzi al-Qawuqji, a former Ottoman Army Artillery Officer and graduate of the Military Academy - Istanbul that operated against the Allied Powers in WWI and a commissioned Colonel - Wehrmacht, and again operated against the Allied Powers in WWII); the Arab Higher Committee rejected the UNSCOP Recommendation in Resolution 181(II) for an Arab State. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People by the Arab League and UN, established a Negotiation Affair Department (NAD), has stated that the "1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). However, this is not universally accepted as a position and is somewhat ambiguous. The Armistice Agreements cease to exist and the establishment of a Peace Treaty. So, the Armistice Agreement with Egypt was replaced by the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, wherein the Article II stipulates that the "The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace." Similarly, the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty, wherein Article III stipulates that the parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them. WHAT is important here it that the Treaties and recognized international boundaries supersede the Green Line and the Armistice Agreement. For all intent and purposed, without prejudice to the status of any territories (leaving the Palestinians the option to revisit the border issue) that came under Israeli military government control in 1967, a new arrangement and border agreement is established. However, the Arab-Palestinians have never established a Peace Arrangement with the Israelis; with the limited exception of the Oslo Accords (which they now want to abrogate). A number of Palestinian representatives have reasserted over time the position that they take relative to the border. In February 1948, the Arab Higher Committee essential stated that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish self-government anywhere in what the considered their exclusive territory. That would be the territory to which the former Mandate for Palestine applied; less the Article 25 Jordanian exception East of the Jordan River. This was reaffirmed in the 1968 PLO Charter and again in the 1988 Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, and once again reiterated in the HAMAS Political Position Paper publish in 2013 by the Chief of their Politburo (Khaled Mashal). Finally, there are several ways, throughout history that Sovereignty has been established over time. Annexation is but one of them. The Palestinians claim that Article 2(4) of the Charter prevents the use of force. However, while many would say this is customary international law --- it has proven itself not to be the case. The latest example of this would be the Russian Federation invasion and annexation of Crimea. And it also has the exact same arguments against its legitimacy. This argument is echoed in the 1975 Helsinki Declaration and again in the 1994 Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances. However, no one is going to mount an armed response against the Russian Federation as a matter of enforcement. Customary international law refers to international obligations arising from established state practice, as opposed to obligations arising from formal written international treaties. According to Article 38(1)(b) of the ICJ Statute, customary international law is one of the sources of international law. Customary international law can be established by showing (1) state practice and (2) opinio juris (sense of legal obligation. In international law, acceptance of a practice as sufficient to create legal obligations). It can be said that while Crimeas act of secession was declared unconstitutional, the circumstances leading up to the decision bring into question the validity of a decision where the judiciary was coerced into adopting this course of action. This again is challengeable. In April 1950, Jordan established a Parliament (with 50% Arab-Palestinians from the West Bank) which voted to Annex the West Bank as sovereign Jordan. Again, while the world grumbled about it, it happened anyway. And whether or not the world accepts it or not, the reality of the ground truth is what it is. This is so very similar to the arguments put forth on the issues of the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and other smaller variation in the territory once delineated by the Green Line. I am quite sure that the incorporation (1950) of Tibet into the People's Republic of China (PRC), view it politically along the lines of a Peaceful Liberation of Tibet. But it is still an annexation through the use of force. (COMMENT) There is a lot of thing to remember that are interconnected with the issue of borders and Annexation. And we can understand why the International legal community and systems are shy about tackling this entire set of questions revolve around the Arab-Israeli Conflict. ARTICLE 3 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. Notice that there are several ways in which the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty can be established. The five general ways are: (1) Occupation: (2) Annexation: (3) Accretion: (4) Cession: (5) Prescription: Most Respectfully, R
The vasy majority of the Green Line is now the official international border between Egypt and Jordan.
Ronstar, et al, This is a point that needs litigated. (COMMENT) If this was entirely true, then there would be NO Palestinian West Bank, as the Official Border between Israel and Jordan is the Jordan River and down the center of the Dead Sea. If this were entirely true, then there would be on Palestinian Gaza Strip, as the official Border between Israel and Egypt is the border road from Karem to the Sea. This is the importance of the phrase: "without prejudice." Most Respectfully, R
sorry bro,but except for the Gaza boundary and the West Bank boundary, the Green line is the international border between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.
Ronstar;, et al This is a very common mistake. (COMMENT) The Armistice Agreements never have any impact on the Palestinians at all. The Palestinians were not a Party to the Agreements. When the Peace Treaties (Egyptian and Jordanian) were signed, the Armistice Agreements --- including the Green Line --- were dissolved. The new internationals were those stipulated in the Treaties. Again, the Palestinians were not parties to the treaties. The boundary between Israel and Lebanon, is called the Blue Line and it is still in effect; as is the Armistice Agreement. The modified Purple Line marks the boundary between Israel and Syria; as adjusted for the annexation of the Golan Heights. Other than the Oslo Accords, which Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) says the Palestinians will abrogate without implementation of the Dispute Resolution Process, causes some confusion. Of course, no one ever expected the Arab Palestinians to honor the agreement by implementing the dispute resolution process. It is just not in their make-up to participate in self-governing processes. Even before 1923, the Arab Palestinians rejected three attempts to incorporate them into the governing process. There was no reason to assume that, 9 decades later, they would have grown into a more mature government. But, don't confuse the old Green Line as a border of any sort. Even the PLO-NAD has abandon that delineator. No Arab authority ever adopted the Green Line as an international boundary. There was an interesting Talking Point Paper by the PLO NEGOTIATIONS OFFICE --- THE GREEN LINE IS A RED LINE: THE 1967 BORDER AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION , 2011. It says in part: 2. What does United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 say about the 1967 border? United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 242 emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the June 1967 War. Israel has argued that UNSC Resolution 242 does not require it to withdraw from all the territories it occupied in 1967. However, such an interpretation is inconsistent with principles of customary international law and the Resolutions own provision that no state may acquire territory by force. In 1967, the territory was NOT Palestinian, but sovereign Jordanian territory. Israel entered the territory after the Jordanians opened hostilities --- for which Israel retaliated. While it is sometime understood, that the use of force is not the preferred method of dispute resolution, it is (more often than not) the method used. There is no customary law that allows any country to open hostilities through acts of war, and profit by it. This is the Arab political position. The want to reset the close to 4 June 1967. The want to be able to instigate war and if they lose, they want everything back they lost. That is not how it works customarily throughout history. Most Respectfully, R
that's all wonderful. Meanwhile the VAST majority of the Green Line between Israel and Egypt is now the international border. same with Jordan.
Most people agree that there won't be a withdrawal to pre 67 lines with Palestinians in negotiations agreeing to land swaps and Arab peace initiative amended to include land swaps. Rite of conquest which is historical norm due to lack of international law historically is not legal post WW2. If you are going to argue that someone should be legal due to being historic tradition than that would include other practices like slavery which was legal for most of human history. It also should be noted that Jordan(btw West Bank wasn't considered sovereign Jordanian territory nor is it considered sovereign Israeli territory with only Pakistan and United Kingdom recognizing Jordanian annexation of West Bank and no country recognizing Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem) which you correctly noted initiated hostilities in 67 war won't be getting West Bank back since they renounced all claims to West Bank in 1988. International law which determines legality of actions during wartime and after wartime include 1907 Hague Regulations, and 1948 Geneva Convention(of which Israel is a signatory of and both Hague and Geneva are considered customary international law). 1907 Hague Regulations as noted below says that when territory comes under control of another army it's occupied. As a result Israel legally became occupying power of West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Sinai after 1967 war. However as a result that means Israel has to obey international laws of occupation which are described in 1907 Hague Regulations and 1948 Geneva Conventions which most experts in international law have said they have not. "Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. " http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp
Well Israel do not consider themselves as <occupiers> but just redeemers of their ancestral land/home. THE STATUS OF JUDEA & SAMARIA ~by HBendor Under the norm of International Law, the status of Judea & Samaria could only be considered "occupied" by Israel, if, in fact they had previously belonged to another sovereign state Jordan, as everyone knows, never existed prior to 1946, it gained control over the West Bank of the river Jordan and East Jerusalem in 1948, by an act of naked aggression against the newly RECONSTITUTED State of Israel. No country in the world apart from Great Britain (which created Jordan by fiat in the first place), and Pakistan recognized this annexation. This invasion did not give it legal title under International Law. The Line between the Jewish State of Israel and the conquering army of Jordan was called an ARMISTICE LINE In 1967, following Jordan's second all out renewed and failed try for a new invasion of Israel and its consequent loss of Control over Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in that attempt... The juridical situation returned to what it had been previously since the League of Nations Mandate Israel is therefore not occupying these areas, as they never belonged to Jordan or any other Arab country historically IN THE FIRST PLACE. The question is If Judea, Samaria are not "occupied territory, what then are they? One of the foremost International Legal Scholars, former Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, describes these lands as the " unallocated parts of the British Mandate still governed by the original provisions contained in THE ORIGINAL MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that was sanctioned by the League of Nations in 1922. One of these provisions, Article 6, of the Mandate for Palestine allowed " close settlement...." of all western Palestine by the Jewish People, as Eastern Palestine was by then wrested away ignominiously from the Mandate by the then British Colonial Secretary Mr. Winston Churchill for the creation of the ARTIFICIAL Palestinian/Arab Emirate named Trans-Jordan now called Jordan. The Jewish settlements in these areas are the physical link of the People of Israel, with the Land of Israel from " Time Immemorial," a link that stretches back to the Bible, the Balfour Declaration, and its International recognition in the PREAMBLE of the Mandate for Palestine, that was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922. Quote:- Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine.... Etc. Unquote. No one can dispute Israel's right to return and redeem this part of its MOTHERLAND, be it Judea, Samaria or any other part of the Mandate, for this right is firmly implanted in International Law, Archeology, Historical Association, Security and Political Justice. P.S. ARTICLE 6 The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other section of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
What is abundantly clear is the fact that Judea and Samaria hold supreme importance for the Jewish people. In this land, which includes the holy city of Hebron, lie the burial sites of historic figures such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rachel, Leah, Rebecca and many others. How can anyone possibly call a Jewish presence here a settlement? Its not a settlement. Its rightful possession. As the video shows, the importance of Hebron cannot be denied. In fact, the importance of the Land of Israel itself cannot be denied.
because according to international law, Occupying Powers cannot confiscate private land for civilian use.
xavierphoenix; et al, The "Right of Conquest" is not quite the same as the prohibition on the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The prohibition of the "Right of Conquest" is directed at an "aggressor" and the first use of force in order to establish control. It is not meant to present an obstacle to a successful defender of sovereignty that gains control over territory while in pursuit of a retreating aggressor. (COMMENT) Other than Article 2(4) of the Charter, there is no International Law that stands independently on the prohibition. Everything is derivative of Article 2(4). The intent of the prohibition is to prevent an aggressor from benefiting from their aggression. It is not to protect the aggressor in the case that the aggressor fails in a hostile bid to secure more territory. And there is no reason to assume that an aggressor that has failed in an aggressive hostile bid for territory, as in the Arab League forces all pitted against Israel, should not be penalized for their initiation of hostilities. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, and the associated Arab League nations that attempted to use their military force to subvert the Israeli use of self-determination, may not seek protection from a successful defense against the advantages gained in the successful Israeli defense and the territory secured in connection with that defense, which may be retained as a form of restitution. There is no prohibition in the 1907 THR or the GCIV for the selective actions taken by Israel in their own defense. Most Respectfully, R
1907 Hague Regulations and 1948 Geneva Conventions are considered customary international law even Israeli Supreme acknowledges 1907 Hague Regulations is customary international law(it's why Supreme Court of Israel views West Bank as occupied territory) and Israel is a signatory of 1948 Geneva Conventions. No one(no one that is not extremist at least) is saying Israel has to give up sovereignty territory. "There is no prohibition in the 1907 THR or the GCIV for the selective actions taken by Israel in their own defense" Nor is no one(again anyone that isn't an extremist) saying that Israel doesn't have a right to attack those that threaten them. As part of being occupying power which Israel under Hague Regulations(which most experts on including again Israel's own highest judicial body) it has to abide by 1907 Hague Regulation and 1948 Geneva Conventions(which again Israel is a signatory of). This means Israel for example can't destroy/take over property unless it's for military purposes(there are several other examples with most experts on international law agreeing that other actions like settlements violate 4th Geneva convention.
xavierphoenix; et al, With a couple minor corrections. (COMMENT) Actually, the 1907 THR and the GCIV are both International Humanitarian Law (IHL); not Customary Law. They are both in the form of International Conventions in a format of a treaty. Sovereign Territory and the Acquisition of Sovereign Territory is Customary Law. (COMMENT) I think that most people would agree that Israel has the absolute right of self-defense under Chapter VII --- Article 51 of the Charter; and under such condition that an intent has been demonstrated or that overt act has been committed. However that is different from the right to attack a potential opponent making threats in violation under Chapter I, Article 2(4) of the Charter. (I assume that you actually meant that and understand that.) (COMMENT) Classic international law defines occupied territory (Article 42 THR) as the sovereign territory of a State that is under the military occupation of another State at a time when a state of war exists between them. A required condition is that the "belligerent occupation" prevents the sovereign state from exercising its authorities in said territory. In this case, the status of "occupation" is under the demand of the UN and Security Council. However, the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) were not sovereign under the authority of the 1988 established Palestinian State by declaration, at the time the Israelis established the "occupation." In 1967, the Gaza Strip was under and Egyptian Military Governorship and the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian Territory. What complicates this issue is that on 31 July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. On 1 August --- only one Government (Israel) was acting in control of the West Bank. The Palestinians did not declare independence until mid-November (two and half months later). This creates an unusual condition (which most authorities do not talk about, but is bound to surface in any ICC prosecutorial complaint) and set of circumstance. Article 42 - THR: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. There are several methods of acquiring "sovereign territory" under Customary International Law: (1) Occupation: There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements: (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory. (2) Annexation: (3) Accretion: (4) Cession: (5) Prescription: Question: What governing state had control of the West Bank before the Palestinians "declared independence?" Did the Palestinians ever have complete sovereignty (absolute authority and control) over the West Bank? There is no real consensual for an absolute international standard in determining what constitutes a legitimate territorial acquisition. There is but one prohibition (controversial), and that has not really passed into customary law. It is deduced from Chapter I of the Charter. There are several examples of acquisitions that are in contravention to the Charter. Most Respectfully, R
baseless claim there is no requirement that Occupied Territory need to have been legally under the sovereign rule of another state first. Mind you, the Jordanian Occupation of the West Bank was legal. The entire international community including the UN Security Council and the Israeli Supreme Court, considers the West Bank to be under Israeli Occupation and governed by the 4th GC and 1907 Hague regulations.
"Actually, the 1907 THR and the GCIV are both International Humanitarian Law (IHL); not Customary Law. They are both in the form of International Conventions in a format of a treaty. Sovereign Territory and the Acquisition of Sovereign Territory is Customary Law." I know they are international humanitarian law; in fact basis of international humanitarian law. The fact is Israel is a signatory of 1948 Geneva Convention which means Israel has agreed to follow 1948 Geneva Conventions. 1907 Hague Regulation is considered international customary law including by ICJ(international court of justice) and again by Israel's own highest judicial body their Supreme Court. https://books.google.com/books?id=v...stomary law 1907 hague regulation icj&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=n...t 1907 hague regulation customary law&f=false "Sovereign Territory and the Acquisition of Sovereign Territory is Customary Law." I agree that sovereign territory is one of the main principles of international law with post WW2 borders and borders created after fall of Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and Asia regarded as sovereign borders. It's why most consider South Ossetia and Abkhazia's declaration's of Independence in George as not legal with most countries not recognizing it. Sovereignty of borders is why most regard Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal(prior to international law during rite of conquest time period Russia annexing Crimea would have been legal). Acquisition of sovereign territory during defense war is legal(which Israel did, illegal invasion would be doing it in offensive war with 2003 Iraq war arguable an example of illegal invasion) but not annexation is legal under international law. "Classic international law defines occupied territory (Article 42 THR) as the sovereign territory of a State that is under the military occupation of another State at a time when a state of war exists between them. A required condition is that the "belligerent occupation" prevents the sovereign state from exercising its authorities in said territory. In this case, the status of "occupation" is under the demand of the UN and Security Council. However, the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) were not sovereign under the authority of the 1988 established Palestinian State by declaration, at the time the Israelis established the "occupation." In 1967, the Gaza Strip was under and Egyptian Military Governorship and the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian Territory." What complicates this issue is that on 31 July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. On 1 August --- only one Government (Israel) was acting in control of the West Bank. The Palestinians did not declare independence until mid-November (two and half months later). This creates an unusual condition (which most authorities do not talk about, but is bound to surface in any ICC prosecutorial complaint) and set of circumstance." For occupation to occur an opposing army has to become authority over a territory. The Hague Regulation doesn't state status of territory placed under authority as long as any territory is placed under authority of opposing army it becomes occupation. In terms of who the territory belongs to, the territory has not been recognized belong either to Jordan or Israel with both country's annexations not recognized. I mentioned before sovereignty is one of the main principals of international law with borders post WW2 and fall of Soviet Union regarded as international borders. However self determination(which can conflict in some cases) is another aspect, under self determination West Bank would belong to Arabs that reside in West Bank. Support for two state solution has been declining(latest poll shows 51 percent oppose two state solution while 48 support it in contrast to 2013 when 53 percent supported it) since many Arabs residing in West Bank believe that it's increasingly becoming impossible to establish a state due to de facto annexation by settlements. Ironically most probably would support Israel annexing entire West Bank which correctly the left, center, and even some in the right like Yisrael Beitenu oppose. http://www.jta.org/2015/09/21/news-...alf-of-palestinians-oppose-two-state-solution http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-palestinians-support-2-state-solution/ There are several methods of acquiring "sovereign territory" under Customary International Law: (1) Occupation: There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements: "(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory. (2) Annexation: (3) Accretion: (4) Cession: (5) Prescription:" 1. Occupation is a temporarily title and as mentioned before occurs when an opposing army gains control of any territory regardless of its status. Occupation ends when authority of the opposing army over territory ends. i. Again before except for Pakistan and United Kingdom no one recognized Jordan as sovereign over West Bank. West Bank wasn't Israeli territory when it was captured as it never was part of the state of Israel with again like Jordan their annexation of East Jerusalem along with Golan Heights not recognized by the world. ii. As long as an opposing army gains control over territory it becomes occupation. 2. Annexation is only legal if it's recognized by the world. Again Israeli annexations aren't recognized by the world. If both Israelis and Arabs residing in West Bank supported annexation than it would be legal for Israel to annex the West Bank. However, again no Israeli government will annex entire West Bank(annexing area C which is 60% of West Bank and includes most fertile areas and mountain aquifers of West Bank doesn't include most of the 2.7 million Arabs that reside in West Bank, like their East Jerusalem and Golan Height annexations they would not be recognized by the world and wouldn't be done with consent of Arabs residing in West Bank). "Question: What governing state had control of the West Bank before the Palestinians "declared independence?" Did the Palestinians ever have complete sovereignty (absolute authority and control) over the West Bank? There is no real consensual for an absolute international standard in determining what constitutes a legitimate territorial acquisition. There is but one prohibition (controversial), and that has not really passed into customary law. It is deduced from Chapter I of the Charter. There are several examples of acquisitions that are in contravention to the Charter." Any threaten or use of force that goes against territorial integrity or political independence is illegal as noted in UN charter with chapter 1 article 2 paragraph 4 listed below "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." I agree there are several examples that contravention of charter again recent example would Russia annexing Crimea. Just because 1907 Hague Regulations, 4th Geneva Convention, UN charter is international law doesn't mean there are plenty examples of countries violating them. In terms of governing state before Palestinians declared independence in 1988 it would be Israel since again from 1967-present their military has had authority over West Bank. Before 1967(from 1948-1967) Jordan was governing control(governing control and sovereign authority are not the same thing) of West Bank. Before that the British empire from 1918 after fall of what was the Ottoman province of Syria to the British until May 1948 when the mandate over Palestine terminated. Before that from 1500's to 1918 it was the Ottoman empire, and so on. The Palestinians never had complete control over West Bank since historically they have been part of some empire like Ottoman or before various Arab caliphs, before that Byzantine empire etc. By after WW2, the rest of mandates became independent, the Arabs in Palestine wanted nothing less than all of Palestine becoming independent as one state. Correctly the large Jewish minority(keep in mind this was after holocaust and many of the Arab nationalists during WW2 allied with HItler including former mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al Hussein) in Palestine at that time refused agreeing to that, agreeing to a Jewish state being formed on an adequate area of Palestine. Subsequently the Jews agreed to partition plan, the Arabs refused, the Jews in Palestine declared their independence the day before mandate ended in May 1948. The Arabs responded with 5 Arab armies invading nascent state and trying to destroy it. The Arabs failed with war ending in 1948, with state of Israel joining United Nations and recognized by most countries since then. During the fighting Jordan captured West Bank. Jordan's rule of West Bank from 1948 to 1967 was not good(in one aspect Jordan did marginally better than their Arab neighbors since it was only after 48 war granting Palestinians citizenship) with many synagogues and churches destroyed, Jews world-wide banned from temple mount along with all Israelis including Israeli Arabs. During 48 war some in the Palmach wanted to capture West Bank, David Ben Gurion wisely overruled them.
Le grand <Garbage>/<recycle bin>... Jordan never existed before 1946... with the help of British officers conquered Judea and Shomron... to redeem what is (in its entirety is) Israel does not make it occupied...
its Occupied, according to international laws. laws that Israel signed and agreed to abide by. and according to the Israeli Supreme Court, which declared that the West Bank is occupied by Israel.
Another Baloney... No one pay attention when the UK is still holding part of <Ireland> and you go scrape the bottom of your historical <DUST BIN> to find Israel at fault. Notwithstanding what the weak past leaders of Israel have signed... Jewish history will always predominate and cry out to interested listeners that this is <ONLY> the Land of Israel and no one else's... we have redeemed what is legally ours and by this we have defeated the conquering <Muslims and not Arabs> of the seventh century AD.... Makes the land of Israel unquestionably Jewish. I hope this will be an eye opener for all.
